Jan Kiszka wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03.
It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA ->
XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments.
Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the
Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ
handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out
what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone
else understand all this:
Third-party comments / suggestions welcome as well. Maybe I'm too
rtdm (Jan's patch) and native skin.
In the later case, rt_intr_create() now contains the 6-th argument,
namely "int mode".
Now I'm waiting for the test results from Jan (the previous patch-set
remains to be suitable for testing too in case you are using it
already). Upon success, the new code is ready for merging.
Trying to manage the priority list of someone else is tricky - I hope we
can see something soon, but I cannot promise anything.
the patches have to be applied as follows :
Happy testing ! :)
My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount
of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable?
I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an
optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking
place. This would also make the "if (irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path
I still prefer configuration options as they also allow to reduce the
overall code size (less cache refills and TLB misses). And shared
interrupts are for x86 only (approximately), I think. Unfortunately, I
don't have the time to follow all the details of the rapid Xenomai
development and can't therefore judge what is really necessary.
Xenomai-core mailing list